- When you are answering a specific question, it would be nice to quote the question so everyone knows what exactly you're referring to.
- Provide support when you are responding to a question.
- Provide links for others who are not as knowledgeable of the subject. Don't assume that everyone here has taken a philosophy class/reads philosophy/etc and knows what you are talking about.
- Be respectful. No flaming.
- Don't turn this into a chat room.

===============
I'll start out with a question.

Is the driver of the get away car as responsible for a bank robbery as the bank robber itself? Is the driver responsible for any other crimes that may occur during the bank robbery (example: murder, etc)?

Now picture the driver of the getaway car in two situations and answer accordingly.

1. The driver has the intent on helping the bank robber rob the bank.
2. The driver is being forced to help the bank robber.

Does it change if the driver does not receive any of the money/whatever is being robbed?

I am aware that this is an "either or" question. However, if you respond to this question, please provide your reasoning to make the discussion more interesting for others to read.

Depends on how you look at it but I'd say they're both at fault. First person doesn't give a crap about helping someone to harm others. While the second person only cares about their own well being and has no backbone to stand up for what is 'right'.

1:sure he is responsible because of his intentions to do a crime
2:he is forced so he has nothing to do with the action,it would be different if he would get forced to kill someone but thats a different case,here its just money.(if he is forced like with a gun)
if he receives money or not does not matter,its not changing his intentions to rob a bank.
its funny that you ask this question,2 years ago a friend of mine got arrested for that

Ok, if hes being force to help the robber to rob the bank, for ex: he was force to drive the robbers away from that area.. or soo.. if the driver dosent done any harm to anyone, then the driver is a victim... but if the driver is force to robb the money from the bank, that is still a crime because he done it... i would ask the lawyer about that...

Depends on whether there is proof that he has the intent to help the bank robber. He has a right to prove his innocence until proven otherwise.

2. The driver is being forced to help the bank robber.

Depends on whether there is proof he's being forced to help the bank robber. He has a right to prove his innocence until proven otherwise.

Assuming there is solid proof for both cases, he's responsible - willingly or not - for all things occurred during the robbery including murder because he's a key of this chain of events.

If he was forced to do it to - presumably - save his own life, he's still responsible because it's still about choices. Life or death. Survive or die. Don't want responsibility? Then die. Want to live? Then take responsibility of what might happen as the result of your choice.

The level of personal responsibility and guilt increases big time if he accepted a payment or reward for his role. It's same for the one who did it as a favour to his bank robber friend because a favour is a debt paid. A spiritual payment, if you like.

On the other hand if he was forced to take part to save someone's life, instead of his own ... ? It's still about choices. Choices = consequences.

"here is one:is a philosophical thread even possible without bringing religion into it?"

Yes, ethics is not necessarily attached to religion. Religious ideas are only one of the many approaches that you can use to deal with philosophical questions, not every metaphysical, moral, and epistemological question has to necessarily include religious concepts.
and let's not forget about logic, which most of the time does not mix well with religious ideas since most of them have logically undetermined truth value.

here is one:is a pilosophical thread even possible without bringing religion into it?

Exactly what mauz15 said above. Also, I wrote "prefer questions to be non-religion related". I think religious issues can be discussed within this thread. However, my intention was for this thread to not ask questions such as "is there a god", "what do you believe in", etc.

here is one:is a pilosophical thread even possible without bringing religion into it?

means,can we talk about meaning of life,causes,nature of things,morals,..etc.
without having someone bringing god to the discussion?

^its always like that!

There is already a 'Meaning of Life' thread. I believe there is also a 'Morals' thread. Anyway, I think you're blowing what I wrote out of proportion. I didn't mean you couldn't discuss those things, only that you shouldn't turn the thread into what I mentioned above. And once again, I agree with what mauz15 wrote about how you can have a philosophical discussion without pulling religion into it.

As you know, my brother is deaf. A few times he's forced me to view this world through his eyes and how people perceive people like him, and from what I see so far it's not pretty. This brings on another question:

2) Why are deaf people more likely to be seen less intelligent than people with other disabilities,e.g. blind people and people in wheelchair?

3) If a person doesn't communicate well, whose fault is it? The person who doesn't speak clearly or the person who doesn't understand him?

I don't like the idea of pinning all "philosophy questions" in one thread.

Well, your first two questions basically come down to whether an accomplice that is farther back in the causal chain of an act (in Q1 robbery, in Q2 other acts) is as responsible as the one who caused the event. Well, the key term is responsible, and I am looking at this more causally, when you might have a diffrent main conception of responsibility in mind. My general response would be that the closest link in the causal chain is the most responsible. If the robber shoots someone, he is clearly more responsible for the shooting then the driver. But, there is also a question as to how premeditated the act is. If they agree to go in shooting, then I would say the driver is more responsible then if they don't discuss it, as he had better understanding of what would happen, and could have stopped it. Not quite sure I get the other questions, no so comment.

As you know, my brother is deaf. A few times he's forced me to view this world through his eyes and how people perceive people like him, and from what I see so far it's not pretty. This brings on another question:

2) Why are deaf people more likely to be seen less intelligent than people with other disabilities,e.g. blind people and people in wheelchair?

3) If a person doesn't communicate well, whose fault is it? The person who doesn't speak clearly or the person who doesn't understand him?

Crap questions, I know, but I'm curious.

I've had this discussion a few days ago. Should we erase all disabilities (prolly through genetics) or just leave it alone as it is? Does anyone have a right to "perfect" humans or have the right to say no to it? But then, when we do reach that point where man has the power to change this, wouldn't that be the end of humanity since progress can only go so far and decline right away.

SO there there is this dilemma of taking over and fixing human "flaws." Just a thought.

RE: catex
1) Disability is the inability to be able to do something -_-. As a society we tend to mean something more like a more or less permanent handicap though when talking about disability. Obviously not at all costs, but If you can get rid of handicaps reasonably why not.
2) Not sure this is generally true. No comment
3) Who's fault is what? The failed communication? Well, clearly I would place more fault with the communicator. But, even though thats true, perhaps its not really a big deal that it is their fault, for instance, if the poor communication due to the fact that they cannot communicate well or have difficulty. If they cannot well, then the listener should realize this and work to understand better. Really, how far back do you want to go back with placing fault? Directly the poor communication can be pinned to the poor communicator. But, like I just typed, if they don't have much choice in the matter why would you bother to pin fault with them. It can be their fault (their inadequacy) and at the same time not be their fault for having that inadequacy. Fault is the key word.

Here is something to ponder....Is it morally defensible to steal from the rich and give to the poor?

RE: catex
1) Disability is the inability to be able to do something -_-. As a society we tend to mean something more like a more or less permanent handicap though when talking about disability. Obviously not at all costs, but If you can get rid of handicaps reasonably why not.
2) Not sure this is generally true. No comment
3) Who's fault is what? The failed communication? Well, clearly I would place more fault with the communicator. But, even though thats true, perhaps its not really a big deal that it is their fault, for instance, if the poor communication due to the fact that they cannot communicate well or have difficulty. If they cannot well, then the listener should realize this and work to understand better. Really, how far back do you want to go back with placing fault? Directly the poor communication can be pinned to the poor communicator. But, like I just typed, if they don't have much choice in the matter why would you bother to pin fault with them. It can be their fault (their inadequacy) and at the same time not be their fault for having that inadequacy. Fault is the key word.

Here is something to ponder....Is it morally defensible to steal from the rich and give to the poor?

It is definitely wrong. Charity is what you give from what you have, and something you stole is not your own. Besides stealing from the rich would make the thief as worse as those pig-headed politicians.